Jackson v Jackson [2000] NSWCA 303

Reported Decision : (2001) DFC 95-231

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Jackson v Jackson [2000] NSWCA 303 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40387/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/10/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 November 2000

PARTIES : William Edward Jackson - Appellant Grace Makalesi Jackson - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Stein JA at 1; Giles JA at 3; Rolfe AJA at 4

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT 4346/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Master Macready JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr P.LeG. Brereton SC/Mr D.P. Ash - Appellant Mr C. Watkins - Respondent SOLICITORS : Turner Freeman - Appellant Watkins Tapsell - Respondent CATCHWORDS : Family Law - De facto relatioinships - Proper way in which to make orders for adjustment of property - Amount awarded by Master clearly justifiable - De Facto Relationships Act 1984, s.20 LEGISLATION CITED : De Facto Relationships Act 1984 Supreme Court Act 1970 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 CASES CITED: Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70 Oertel v Crocker (1947) 75 CLR 261 Ballas v The Theophilos (No 1) (1957) CLR 186 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs. ND

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40387 of 1999 ED 4346 of 1997

STEIN JA GILES JA ROLFE AJA

WEDNESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2000 JACKSON v JACKSON JUDGMENT 1 STEIN JA: I agree with Rolfe AJA, his reasons and orders save in one respect. I also agree with his Honour's remarks on the question of the possible need for leave to appeal. This should be kept in mind in future appeals under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. 2 My only departure from the reasons of Rolfe AJA is from his conclusion that the Master's award was 'somewhat generous' (para 34). The Master found that the s 20(1)(b) contributions for parenting and homemaking 'strongly favour' the respondent. The evidence before the Master and his findings on the quality of the appellant's homemaking contribution plainly justified the conclusion. I have no difficulty in this finding translating into the monetary figure of $48,339 mentioned by Rolfe AJA in his judgment. Certainly it was within the discretionary range of the Master. No appellate intervention is justified. 3 GILES JA: I agree with Rolfe AJA.